Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

You are. You have described it as "anti-Christian propaganda". Can you give some arguments for that? You can't.

This film is the best example of Islamic propaganda, which is in most cases indirectly anti-Christian propaganda as Islam considers Christianity the primary rival for now. In this case, however, this film is directly anti-Christian propaganda as it tries to link the conquest of Constantinople to the fulfillment of Muhammad's prediction (you can see that supposed hadith in the introductory scene) and describes it as the defeat of Christianity. In Islam military victories are always regarded as hard evidence for Allah's help and support granted to believers for their being in the true path. Muslims who made this film want to say that Orthodox Christians were defeated and their religious center was captured because Allah is on Muslims' side and he punishes Christians for their lack of belief in Islam/Qur'an/Muhammad.

You are. You have described it as "anti-Christian propaganda". Can you give some arguments for that? You can't.

The clips I've seen along with movie descriptions make apparent the obvious falsehoods contained in the movie that earn it the title "propaganda". The righteous Muslim Turk victorious over his hedonistic Christian enemies, making direct references to Qur'anic prophecy. Now, is it in this respect any worse than most American war films? I don't know. Probably not. As you say, I'd have to see the whole thing to review it. However, the Ottoman victory over the Byzantines is not just an event that occurred long in the past. The film aims to stir up the same Turkish imperialist sentiments that are the reason half of the Orthodox island of Cyprus is till under occupation - you can go and see for yourself how every Turkish mosque in the southern part of the island has been kept pristine while every church and monastery in the north have become mosques, post offices, cafes, barns, or simply left to decay - or why using the phrase "Armenian genocide" can lead to imprisonment.

I would quite like to see the full movie, so if anyone finds a version with subtitles I'd be grateful. When I've watched the whole thing, I'll be in a position to give a 'review'. That it is propaganda, however, and of a kind that is an affront to Orthodox Christians, can easily be discerned without a full viewing.

Should it be banned? Of course not. Again, I am not applauding Lebanon for banning movies. No movie should be banned, unless it's snuff, or child porn or something like that. What I do think is positive is that they are making an effort to treat religious minorities with equal dignity. I don't agree with the rule. But if you have a rule, at least apply it equally to everyone. That's my point.

You are. You have described it as "anti-Christian propaganda". Can you give some arguments for that? You can't.

judging from its promotion in Muslim da'wah circles, the anti-Christian propaganda might just be Muslims being Muslims-Muslim tradition doesn't have a high opinion of Christianity.

Btw, I've seen parts dubbed in English for "educating" American Muslims, with what I would characterize as "sinister" voices (think Ja'far from Aladin, for instance) for the Christians, and measured calm speech for the Turkish ghazis.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Btw, I've seen parts dubbed in English for "educating" American Muslims, with what I would characterize as "sinister" voices (think Ja'far from Aladin, for instance) for the Christians, and measured calm speech for the Turkish ghazis.

Both Constantine and Mehmet were portrayed in the film as people with some mental problems.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Don't you think banning a movie because you don't like it is a bit silly?

When the entire Muslim world is calling for a ban on 'Innocence of Muslims', I think Lebanon's decision to extend the same standards to anti-Christian propaganda is honourable.

It isn't "anti-christian" propaganda, more like Turkish nationalist propaganda.

They are essentially the same thing. When you can be dragged into court for admitting that Turkish nationalists intentionally massacred Christians in the past, it is essentially the same thing. When rulings of the Turkish courts have declared the native Syriac Orthodox Christians "native foreigners" in order to dispossess them of their ancient monasteries that predate the arrival of "the Turks" in Turkey (figure that one out...) and the birth of their beloved Islam, they are essentially the same thing.

I too applaud Lebanon. No more double standards. If Muslims are going to demand that we be as stupid as they are in banning things they don't like purely because they don't like them, then they're going to taste the other side of that and their anti-Christian propaganda should be actionable under the same rationale that they embrace when crying to the UN for worldwide anti-blasphemy laws. I am not pro-censorship, but I really think that this is the only way that they might ever come to see what a bad idea such laws are, and maybe, just maybe, shut up for five seconds about their stupid precious feelings and perpetually offended "ummwaaaaaaah".

God be praised, I hope they ban the Qur'an next. It offends me even more than some stupid movie, and has done irreparable damage to the world and millions upon millions of souls in it.

Eastern Catholics were defeated. Constantinople was not Orthodox then.

Hmm, they were defeated because they were Catholics or because they were Eastern? AFAIR, a few years after the fall of Constantinople the Western Catholics defeated Muslims and drove them out of Spain.

But seriously, say what you will about Mr. Wilders, but I think he is at least much more realistic about the dangers of Islam than many others, and certainly any politician in the USA. Here we get our first elected Muslim official (leaving aside those who think that Obama is a Muslim...maybe "openly Muslim" might be a better way to put it, for those people), Rep. Keith Ellison (Minnesota), and it is hailed as a great leap forward in progress and social equality...as though all religions or ways of life are the same, and no one can ever say that it's a bad thing to give a Muslim the power to rule over you. Well, Western Europe is experiencing a foretaste of that now, hence the rise of right wing politicians and political parties in some sectors of society. But anyway...this is not the politics forum, so I'll knock it off, but that was mostly hyperbole on my part, anyway. I don't think the Qur'an should be banned, but I do think it should be treated as any other book, which Muslims are constantly fighting against the idea of, because that might expose it as being something other than what they say it is. And to Islam that is the worst crime. But while we are not under Shari'a, I'll say ban it until Muhammad comes back on his winged horse...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Most of the early Syriac writers (Eastern and Western), who were the first people to encounter Muslims outside of Arabia proper, tended to contextualize Islam's rapid absorption of their people by similar ideas, Michal, i.e., that it was a punishment from God for their laxity or faithlessness. But also, as the famous unnamed monk of Bet Hale reminded the Arab notable, God has not given the Muslims the world. Both they and we would do well to remember that.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Did you start this thread to be the PR man for this movie? Because then I don't see how it's Christian news... "Guy on the Internet Defends Turkish Movie Banned in Lebanon" wouldn't even make it into the Daily Star in the first place.

Most of the early Syriac writers (Eastern and Western), who were the first people to encounter Muslims outside of Arabia proper, tended to contextualize Islam's rapid absorption of their people by similar ideas, Michal, i.e., that it was a punishment from God for their laxity or faithlessness. But also, as the famous unnamed monk of Bet Hale reminded the Arab notable, God has not given the Muslims the world. Both they and we would do well to remember that.

When Muhammad's army was defeated by the pagans in 625, Muhammad said that it was part of a divine test. Allah trying the Muslims. Now the Muslim Philistines still cannot get Jerusalem. They are still trying whilst Allah is still trying them

Eastern Catholics were defeated. Constantinople was not Orthodox then.

Hmm, they were defeated because they were Catholics or because they were Eastern? AFAIR, a few years after the fall of Constantinople the Western Catholics defeated Muslims and drove them out of Spain.

They had abandoned the true Church centuries before-the caliph conquered Spain shortly after the council of Toledo of filioque fame. Having been mired in heresy for nearly a millenium, not much could be required of their "Catholic Majesties." The Emperor of the Romans apostacizing from his baptismal Faith, and trying to drag the rest of the Church with him, was another matter.

New Rome was going through a series of EP who submitted to the Vatican during the seige. The future EP Scholarios made his peace with the Sultan in exchange for leaving the Orthodox to him before the City fell.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Eastern Catholics were defeated. Constantinople was not Orthodox then.

Hmm, they were defeated because they were Catholics or because they were Eastern? AFAIR, a few years after the fall of Constantinople the Western Catholics defeated Muslims and drove them out of Spain.

They had abandoned the true Church centuries before-the caliph conquered Spain shortly after the council of Toledo of filioque fame. Having been mired in heresy for nearly a millenium, not much could be required of their "Catholic Majesties." The Emperor of the Romans apostacizing from his baptismal Faith, and trying to drag the rest of the Church with him, was another matter.

New Rome was going through a series of EP who submitted to the Vatican during the seige. The future EP Scholarios made his peace with the Sultan in exchange for leaving the Orthodox to him before the City fell.

Yes, better the turban than the papal tiara.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

They had abandoned the true Church centuries before-the caliph conquered Spain shortly after the council of Toledo of filioque fame. Having been mired in heresy for nearly a millenium, not much could be required of their "Catholic Majesties." The Emperor of the Romans apostacizing from his baptismal Faith, and trying to drag the rest of the Church with him, was another matter.

Most of the early Syriac writers (Eastern and Western), who were the first people to encounter Muslims outside of Arabia proper, tended to contextualize Islam's rapid absorption of their people by similar ideas, Michal, i.e., that it was a punishment from God for their laxity or faithlessness. But also, as the famous unnamed monk of Bet Hale reminded the Arab notable, God has not given the Muslims the world. Both they and we would do well to remember that.

When Muhammad's army was defeated by the pagans in 625, Muhammad said that it was part of a divine test. Allah trying the Muslims. Now the Muslim Philistines still cannot get Jerusalem. They are still trying whilst Allah is still trying them

They succeeded in less than a decade (638), and held it for over 12 centuries. Only the pagans have held it longer.

Of course, I'm more concerned that the Christian Palestinians can't get Jerusalem. Or last there, humanly speaking, in present conditions.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You are. You have described it as "anti-Christian propaganda". Can you give some arguments for that? You can't.

judging from its promotion in Muslim da'wah circles, the anti-Christian propaganda might just be Muslims being Muslims-Muslim tradition doesn't have a high opinion of Christianity.

Btw, I've seen parts dubbed in English for "educating" American Muslims, with what I would characterize as "sinister" voices (think Ja'far from Aladin, for instance) for the Christians, and measured calm speech for the Turkish ghazis.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

They succeeded in less than a decade (638), and held it for over 12 centuries. Only the pagans have held it longer.

Of course, I'm more concerned that the Christian Palestinians can't get Jerusalem. Or last there, humanly speaking, in present conditions.

I assure you that once the state of Palestine is established, Christians will be the first to leave the country.

we have been leaving for some time, at least since the Zionist came. It's been 20 years since I was there last, but the local Christians preferred the Jordanians. At least the Muslims have some use for you. The Zionists have no room for goyim.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

For what it is worth for the past 1500 years, essentially have we had any better attitudes about Arabs

Many of the Arabs before and even after the invention of Islam were "us" -- the Lakhmids, the Ghassanids, the Banu Taghlib, etc. were all Christian tribes. Do not fall for the Islamist lie that links Arab and Muslim together in an existential fashion. If Islam had never happened, there would still be plenty of Arabs.